girlgeniusfandomcom-20200214-history
Forum:What makes a villain a villain?
Okay, so I'm taking all the disscussions from other relevant pages and sticking them here, so that the subject can have proper coverage. Note: there might be some weirdness in the transition, because I copy-pasted everything from the articla about minions. Sorry about that. HeterodyneGirl (talk) 20:24, February 4, 2013 (UTC) Just like "Villains", I really don't think this category works. Of all the characters listed, only the following are indisputable: Boris, Black Squad, Bang, Higgs, the Lackya, Von Pinn, Dr. Vg, Captain Vole. Two articles aren't even about characters (Quester - should be defined term, Hoomhoffer - should be Construct). If we use the definition "usually doing what they're told" then Dr. Dim belongs in with the other minions and Bang, Vole, Wooster, Mr. Rovainen, etc. all don't go in there. --mnenyver 11:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC) :I started about three different responses to this and didn't like any of them, but let me try again: a "Minion" of a Spark is not necessarily either a "willing" or a "faithful" servant of the Spark, but rather someone under the influence of the Spark's sheer force of will ("charisma") who does stuff as a result of that influence. This draws a distinction between a Minion and a "slave" on the one hand (since it's not charisma that drives a slave's behavior but rather the certainty of punishment), or a hired gun on the other (since a hired gun is motivated by money, not by charisma, although some hired guns like Bang do eventually fall under that charisma and act like minions). It leaves open the question of whether a Jäger in the Wulfenbach employ is a Wulfenbach minion (although Jägers are certainly Heterodyne minions), but I don't think that's a bad thing: after all these years, we still don't completely understand what is motivating the Jägers aboard Castle Wulfenbach. -- that old bearded guy 14:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC) ::So are you advocating listing absolutely everyone? If so, that means Dr. Dim goes back on the list. :) --mnenyver 14:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC) :: I like this definition. I also think that, under it, the Jaegers on the Dirigicastle should count as Wulfenbach minions until further information comes along, because it's evident from the Lackya parallels and from Da Boyz' explanation of their mission ("he needed us, but not as much as we needed him") that they're just natural minions, not unlike the people of Mechanicsburg. They have a need for that Sparky charisma, and the fact that he's not the first choice and they'll probably switch off when further information comes along doesn't change the fact that they're getting it from the Baron now. -Acacia 00:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC) :I like the minions category. This is a comic about Mad Science. There are Sparks and there are Minions. I agree with Graybeard that being a minion isn't about whether you like your employer, it's about the influence they have no you. But I think we should take a slightly broader definition, so we don't have to debate too much whether this or that character qualifies. What I think would be most useful is a definition that depends on chain of command, so "Wulfenbach Minion" means someone who, ultimately, takes orders from Klaus. No, I'm not sure what to do about Wooster in that case, either. He's really a minion of Gil, isn't he? :What I don't like is the Villains category. It's so hard to tell who's really "evil" in this comic. Yes, Lucrezia in Sturmhalten qualified, but does that mean Lucrezia played everyone for suckers from the very beginning, and only married Bill for power? Or was she the victim of her own boredom? Or something weirder. We really don't know. So even our most obvious villain is too complicated for the category. Now, we have plenty of Antagonists...though I'm not sure we really need a category for them, either. Just my opinions, -Evaneyreddeman 14:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC) :I don't have any problems with a Villains category, for two reasons. First, evil is as evil does, and there are definitely some evildoers on the loose here. Second, this wiki is not intended to be oracular -- assertions can be challenged and need not stand as immutable facts. If it eventually turns out that somebody's apparently villainous behavior is being misconstrued, you can always edit the article. Yes, it is hard to tell who's "evil;" that's one of the things that makes Girl Genius fun, not to mention a lot more realistic than much of its competition. But that doesn't mean there's not going to be a BBEG and his/her minions. Quite the contrary, the battle lines are already being drawn. -- Graybeard, posting as 128.165.144.60 19:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC) ::I say a) keep Wulfenbach Minions, list everybody (even Wooster and Dr. Dim) and b) remove Villains category. Funny enough, what Graybeard wrote is pretty much my argument for getting rid of it. (And some things Klaus and Gil have done arguably qualify as "doing evil", so they'd go in too. So would Othar.) --mnenyver 19:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC) :::Actually, on reflection I do have one problem with a Villains category: it is potentially one great huge cattywhompus of a spoiler. It should perhaps be deleted for this reason alone. However, to me the difficulty in deciding whether some characters are villains or not (with some there's not much doubt...) is a reason to keep the category, not to get rid of it. Tons of good opportunities will exist to debate whether a character belongs on it or not, and that is a good thing. Can't you see a "Heroes and Villains" forum getting organized for that debate? Should be fun! -- that old bearded guy 00:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC) :::: Oi, this whole wiki is a spoiler! The entry on General Selnikov alone is entirely in past tense, and having a 'death' entry on the character sidebar...? :) Not a very stable argument from that point. :::: Corgi 05:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC) :::: So long as we can put some folks (like Klaus) in both the Hero and Villain categories, it works for me. --mnenyver 06:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC) ::::: look But he's not a villain. You know that. headtilt Corgi 06:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC) ::::::For story purposes, he functions as one. He always gets that label -- things like his Works card say 'Villain' on them. But this was at the beginning of the story, when less was known about his motives or methods, so I'm okay with leaving him off the list. :) --mnenyver 11:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC) ::::::: An-TA-go-nist. :) Corgi 12:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC) ::::And this is exactly why I don't like the category. Klaus functions as a villain, yes. He's an antagonist. Has the personal/moral qualities of a villain? No. And what about Vrin? I like her. I like her determination and her loyalty. That she's also sneaky and ruthless and completely at odds with Agatha doesn't make her EVIL, though. We really could go through the list of "villains" and do a similar anaylysis. They're not cardboard characters: they each have motives and morals (even Tarvek, probably), and they get in Agatha's way not because the Story dictates it, but because they're trying to move the world in another direction. Villain is more of a melodrama concept, appropriate to the Heterodyne Stories. Agatha's story is too complex for that. (Well, that's my opinion, anyway. I guess I feel strongly about it. Who knew?) -Evaneyreddeman 15:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC) ::::: I fully agree with everything you've said here... but, to me, the fact that anyone wants the cat at all means it's of some use to someone, and probably worth keeping for that reason. Since I don't like it, I just won't use it, and let those who do sort out the details of who goes where. —Acacia 15:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC) :::Personally, I would not consider Klaus a "villain." There is ample room for discussion, but the position he occupies is very unusual in fiction, and almost amounts more to being the battleground itself. However, there are other characters who can be defined as "villains" in a much more unambiguous way. There is absolutely no moral system I'm aware of in which The Other's behavior doesn't qualify as villainous. Likewise Bang. I'd put Strinbeck and Oublenmach and Zola under that heading as well, maybe Vrin too (although that's another highly complex character), probably the various Sturmvorausen, and so on. The presence of some cases that may or may not fit smoothly into a category doesn't keep the category from being useful for other, more unambiguous (and more common) cases. -- GB, as usual masquerading as 128.165.144.60 17:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC) :::: Exactly the KDL's point - he's an antagonist, sure, but look at his motivations. That is where the villany lies. Vrin? Willing to kill every female Spark in Europa just to get her goddess back. Bang? Psychopathic, 'nuf said. The Knights of Jove (to save typing a list)? Cheerfully upsetting two decades of relative peace and progress just to put their own man on a legendary throne. Who cares whether the peasants get eaten, anyway? :::: Klaus? Surrendered the balance of his life, his marriage and in effect, his son to fulfill his best friends' higher principles. I think no matter how complex the characters are, their villany becomes evident sooner rather than later. :::: Corgi 12:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)